What have we learned about trial design from NIMH-funded pragmatic trials

24Citations
Citations of this article
63Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

At the 2008 annual meeting of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP), a symposium was devoted to the following question: what have we learned about the design of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) from the recent costly long-term, large-scale trials of psychiatric treatments? in order to inform the design of future trials. In all, 10 recommendations were generated placing emphasis on (1) appropriate conduct of pragmatic trials; (2) clinical, rather than, merely statistical significance; (3) sampling from the population clinicians are called upon to treat; (4) clinical outcomes of patients, rather than, on outcome measures; (5) use of stratification, controlling, or adjusting when necessary and not otherwise; (6) appropriate consideration of site differences in multisite studies; (7) encouragement of post hoc exploration to generate (not test) hypotheses; (8) precise articulation of the treatment strategy to be tested and use of the corresponding appropriate design; (9) expanded opportunity for training of researchers and reviewers in RCT principles; and (10) greater emphasis on data sharing. © 2010 Nature Publishing Group All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

March, J., Kraemer, H. C., Trivedi, M., Csernansky, J., Davis, J., Ketter, T. A., & Glick, I. D. (2010, December). What have we learned about trial design from NIMH-funded pragmatic trials. Neuropsychopharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2010.115

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free